Attorney General Eric Holder defends killing of American terror suspectsUS Attorney General Eric Holder on Monday defended the government's use of lethal force against Americans suspected of being plotting terrorism while abroad.

The speech marked the first time a senior US official has publicly justified in legal terms the drone attacks that are believed to have killed at least three US citizens on foreign soil in recent months, including key al-Qaeda figure Anwar al-Awlaki.

"Given the nature of how terrorists act and where they tend to hide, it may not always be feasible to capture a United States citizen terrorist who presents an imminent threat of violent attack," Mr Holder said in a speech at a law school in Chicago.

"In that case, our government has the clear authority to defend the United States with lethal force."

Mr Holder said there were circumstances under which "an operation using lethal force in a foreign country, targeted against a US citizen who is a senior operational leader of al-Qaeda or associated forces, and who is actively engaged in planning to kill Americans, would be lawful."

Such circumstances included that a thorough review had determined the individual posed "an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States" and that "capture is not feasible."

Thirdly, the "operation would be conducted in a manner consistent with applicable law of war principles," Mr Holder told the audience at the Northwestern University School of Law.

"Some have called such operations 'assassinations.' They are not... assassinations are unlawful killings," Mr Holder said.

"Our legal authority is not limited to the battlefield in Afghanistan... We are at war with a stateless enemy, prone to shifting operations from country to country," he added.

"Our government has both a responsibility and a right to protect this nation and its people from such threats."

Civil rights groups have cried foul since the killing of Awlaki in Yemen in September in a US raid.

Some argued it was illegal for the US military to kill an American citizen on the battlefield, following no attempt to indict him.

US intelligence officials believed Awlaki was linked to a US army major charged with shooting dead 13 people in 2009 in Fort Hood, Texas, and to a Nigerian student accused of trying to blow up a US airliner on December 25, 2009.

President Barack Obama said in September that Awlaki's killing was a "major blow" to Al-Qaeda's Yemeni branch, and marked "another significant milestone in the broader effort to defeat al-Qaeda and its affiliates."

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) last month filed a lawsuit seeking the release of documents authorizing targeted drone strikes.

US citizen Samir Khan was killed in the same attack on Awlaki, and the cleric's US-born teenage son was killed in October in a separate strike in Yemen.

So, IF I'm understanding this correctly, as long as the American Citizen is a 'terrorist' and poses an immediate threat, the US Govt can kill them anywhere at any time. Am I the only one that sees a problem with this policy and those like it? What happened to having the right to face your accuser? Who gets to decide whether or not someone is a 'terrorist' (TEA Party and OWS folks could both be classified as terrorists) What exactly is 'an immediate threat'? One might think that if the US Govt has the resources to track down and kill someone, then they should / could also have the resources to arrest them, no?Thoughts?

_________________

Quote:

Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....

March 6th, 2012, 2:25 pm

m2karateman

RIP Killer

Joined: October 20th, 2004, 4:16 pmPosts: 10398Location: Where ever I'm at now

Re: AG Eric Holder defends killing of American terror suspec

TheRealWags wrote:

So, IF I'm understanding this correctly, as long as the American Citizen is a 'terrorist' and poses an immediate threat, the US Govt can kill them anywhere at any time. Am I the only one that sees a problem with this policy and those like it? What happened to having the right to face your accuser? Who gets to decide whether or not someone is a 'terrorist' (TEA Party and OWS folks could both be classified as terrorists) What exactly is 'an immediate threat'? One might think that if the US Govt has the resources to track down and kill someone, then they should / could also have the resources to arrest them, no?Thoughts?

In my eyes, Obama, Pelosi, Feinstein, Holder and a host of others are terrorists and should be killed under these guidelines.

_________________I will not put on blinders when it comes to our QBs performances.

March 6th, 2012, 4:03 pm

TheRealWags

Modmin Dude

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 amPosts: 12488

Re: AG Eric Holder defends killing of American terror suspec

m2karateman wrote:

TheRealWags wrote:

So, IF I'm understanding this correctly, as long as the American Citizen is a 'terrorist' and poses an immediate threat, the US Govt can kill them anywhere at any time. Am I the only one that sees a problem with this policy and those like it? What happened to having the right to face your accuser? Who gets to decide whether or not someone is a 'terrorist' (TEA Party and OWS folks could both be classified as terrorists) What exactly is 'an immediate threat'? One might think that if the US Govt has the resources to track down and kill someone, then they should / could also have the resources to arrest them, no?Thoughts?

In my eyes, Obama, Pelosi, Feinstein, Holder and a host of others are terrorists and should be killed under these guidelines.

Just wait till they start putting Christians, or conservatives on the hit list! And I dare you to tell me they won't!!!!

Hitler was the proof for this mindset, he utilized the Brown Party to get power then turned around and killed them off. The Ghetto's the German Officers began to accept bribes, and other "favors" to give off the semblance of protection of the Juden's, but in truth it was to build complacency, so that when they came to "relocate" them to safer areas, the Jews went without a problem, initially.

Stand in there way, and you're gonna feel the heat. Word is coming out now that the TEA party activist are being threatened by the IRS. See what I mean. It's just starting.

_________________Acts 4:13, 1 Cor. 2:1-5, Rom. 12:1-2

March 6th, 2012, 4:59 pm

wjb21ndtown

Re: AG Eric Holder defends killing of American terror suspec

TheRealWags wrote:

m2karateman wrote:

TheRealWags wrote:

So, IF I'm understanding this correctly, as long as the American Citizen is a 'terrorist' and poses an immediate threat, the US Govt can kill them anywhere at any time. Am I the only one that sees a problem with this policy and those like it? What happened to having the right to face your accuser? Who gets to decide whether or not someone is a 'terrorist' (TEA Party and OWS folks could both be classified as terrorists) What exactly is 'an immediate threat'? One might think that if the US Govt has the resources to track down and kill someone, then they should / could also have the resources to arrest them, no?Thoughts?

In my eyes, Obama, Pelosi, Feinstein, Holder and a host of others are terrorists and should be killed under these guidelines.

Someone is either an enemy combatant in a war, in which case the rules of war apply (which will sanction killing without a trial) or they are a suspected criminal, in which case the rules of justice apply and they should be arrested and brought to a fair trial.

That should apply, IMO, regardless of the nationallity of the person in question.

Terrorism is a tricky area, because it sits in a grey area between war and criminality. Which means there is debate as to how you should deal with terrorism suspects. But I don't see how nationality should change that picture.

March 7th, 2012, 8:55 am

WarEr4Christ

QB Coach

Joined: October 26th, 2005, 11:48 pmPosts: 3056Location: Elkhart, In.

Re: AG Eric Holder defends killing of American terror suspec

UK,

After reading your post I wondered how that ties into the fact that our current leadership was demanding that US soldiers and Marines read the Miranda Act to enemy combatants captured in the course of their duties.

The Miranda Act is for American Citizens. It does not apply to, nor can it, the rest of the world, unless they become a citizen of the US through normal channels, which doesn't involve trying to kill us.

A couple of weeks ago, UK Lion expressed regret and indignation that he agreed with me about something. I'm now gonna return the favor.

An enemy combatant is an enemy combatant, regardless of nationallity. If we use citizenship as the determining factor, should US soldiers ask for the passports of those firing at them before returning fire? I know that's an extreme example, but I think you get my point. If someone is plotting or planning to kill US citizens, kill them first. End of story.

With that said, I understand that last year's NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act) was rather broad and could be interpreted to include US citizens on US soil. That is a rather scary thought since Homeland Security has included anti-government, pro-gun, and right wing groups as potential terrorists in previous publications. As a result, I'm probably on their list of assassination targets on all three accounts. But somehow, I doubt that the Occupy Wall Street commies, anarchists, rapists, murderers, vandals, and general scumbags are. Oh well. I'll take my chances.

_________________

March 8th, 2012, 1:43 am

WarEr4Christ

QB Coach

Joined: October 26th, 2005, 11:48 pmPosts: 3056Location: Elkhart, In.

Re: AG Eric Holder defends killing of American terror suspec

There lies the problem, the military is an enforcement tool of the US Government in terms of combat. To use it as a police force is wrong, and outside of their training.

To allow the UN and World Court to charge and attempt to try American Soldiers, shows how cowardly the US Government has become. An American Soldier is operating at the request of his commander in chief. ANY violation of the UCMJ is a military matter, and MORE strict than civilian law.

The World Court system is biased, and untrustworthy. Just as I wouldn't put American troops under foreign control. It's not a pride thing, it's a training thing. American troops use small unit leadership, especially the Marine Corps. The mission is communicated and the leaders get it done, but mistakes and evil will happen, it's war, and it is a breeding ground for such violence.

However, I want someone to have the stones enough to step up and illustrate and report all of the GOOD stories our troops have done. How many lives have we saved? How about the prison filled with Children in Baghdad that we liberated? How about the medical care, and many other things that we've done? Afghanistan has REAL roads now in some areas. But you don't hear those stories, how come?

If Holder wants to target people, he can start with these two:

1. Soros2. Mayer (the terrorist friend of obama)

_________________Acts 4:13, 1 Cor. 2:1-5, Rom. 12:1-2

March 8th, 2012, 9:51 am

TheRealWags

Modmin Dude

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 amPosts: 12488

Re: AG Eric Holder defends killing of American terror suspec

WarEr4Christ wrote:

However, I want someone to have the stones enough to step up and illustrate and report all of the GOOD stories our troops have done. How many lives have we saved? How about the prison filled with Children in Baghdad that we liberated? How about the medical care, and many other things that we've done? Afghanistan has REAL roads now in some areas. But you don't hear those stories, how come?

Just a thought, but why don't YOU do this? What is stopping you? Start a blog and roll with it.../just a thought...

1. soldiers are subject to certain international laws, and able to be held accountable by international bodies for breach of those laws; and

2. that whilst "I was following orders" will excuse many otherwise illegal acts, there are certain acts so morally repugnent that "I was following orders" will not get you out of them (eg genocide).

If you take away either of those two principles, you take away the legal foundation for the Nuremburg trials and therefore the basis for holding Nazi war criminals accountable for their actions.

If you hold to those principles, then you accept that your own troops may have to face trial someday if they commit war crimes of sufficient magnitude that "I was following orders" doesn't cut it.

March 8th, 2012, 10:43 am

wjb21ndtown

Re: AG Eric Holder defends killing of American terror suspec

UK Lion wrote:

WarER - what's your view of the Nuremburg trials?

As I understand it, they rested on 2 important principles:

1. soldiers are subject to certain international laws, and able to be held accountable by international bodies for breach of those laws; and

2. that whilst "I was following orders" will excuse many otherwise illegal acts, there are certain acts so morally repugnent that "I was following orders" will not get you out of them (eg genocide).

If you take away either of those two principles, you take away the legal foundation for the Nuremburg trials and therefore the basis for holding Nazi war criminals accountable for their actions.

If you hold to those principles, then you accept that your own troops may have to face trial someday if they commit war crimes of sufficient magnitude that "I was following orders" doesn't cut it.

Soldiers are subject to international law. No one is disputing that. However, only jus cogen laws are punishable in an international court tribunal, and there is only one jus cogen law that is recognized - genocide - which was the basis of the Nuremburg trials.

This really is unprecedented. This is the U.S. government saying that our own citizens are not protected by our Constitution where they are deemed (arbitrarily I might add) to be an enemy combatant. They're saying that we have no "rights" as soon as they say that we don't. That's scary. Further, you can be an "enemy combatant" right here in the U.S. It use to be that you STILL had rights, but they could try you for treason for "crimes against your country." Apparently that is no longer the case. Now they can literally label someone, round them up, and lock them away (or worse) under fairly arbitrary means.

March 8th, 2012, 3:14 pm

TheRealWags

Modmin Dude

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 amPosts: 12488

Re: AG Eric Holder defends killing of American terror suspec

wjb21ndtown wrote:

UK Lion wrote:

WarER - what's your view of the Nuremburg trials?

As I understand it, they rested on 2 important principles:

1. soldiers are subject to certain international laws, and able to be held accountable by international bodies for breach of those laws; and

2. that whilst "I was following orders" will excuse many otherwise illegal acts, there are certain acts so morally repugnent that "I was following orders" will not get you out of them (eg genocide).

If you take away either of those two principles, you take away the legal foundation for the Nuremburg trials and therefore the basis for holding Nazi war criminals accountable for their actions.

If you hold to those principles, then you accept that your own troops may have to face trial someday if they commit war crimes of sufficient magnitude that "I was following orders" doesn't cut it.

Soldiers are subject to international law. No one is disputing that. However, only jus cogen laws are punishable in an international court tribunal, and there is only one jus cogen law that is recognized - genocide - which was the basis of the Nuremburg trials.

This really is unprecedented. This is the U.S. government saying that our own citizens are not protected by our Constitution where they are deemed (arbitrarily I might add) to be an enemy combatant. They're saying that we have no "rights" as soon as they say that we don't. That's scary. Further, you can be an "enemy combatant" right here in the U.S. It use to be that you STILL had rights, but they could try you for treason for "crimes against your country." Apparently that is no longer the case. Now they can literally label someone, round them up, and lock them away (or worse) under fairly arbitrary means.

Doesn't the PATRIOT Act give them ability as well? Say someone is a 'terrorist' or 'providing material support' for terrorists, send them to GITMO, not to be heard from again....

_________________

Quote:

Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....

March 8th, 2012, 3:47 pm

wjb21ndtown

Re: AG Eric Holder defends killing of American terror suspec

TheRealWags wrote:

wjb21ndtown wrote:

UK Lion wrote:

WarER - what's your view of the Nuremburg trials?

As I understand it, they rested on 2 important principles:

1. soldiers are subject to certain international laws, and able to be held accountable by international bodies for breach of those laws; and

2. that whilst "I was following orders" will excuse many otherwise illegal acts, there are certain acts so morally repugnent that "I was following orders" will not get you out of them (eg genocide).

If you take away either of those two principles, you take away the legal foundation for the Nuremburg trials and therefore the basis for holding Nazi war criminals accountable for their actions.

If you hold to those principles, then you accept that your own troops may have to face trial someday if they commit war crimes of sufficient magnitude that "I was following orders" doesn't cut it.

Soldiers are subject to international law. No one is disputing that. However, only jus cogen laws are punishable in an international court tribunal, and there is only one jus cogen law that is recognized - genocide - which was the basis of the Nuremburg trials.

This really is unprecedented. This is the U.S. government saying that our own citizens are not protected by our Constitution where they are deemed (arbitrarily I might add) to be an enemy combatant. They're saying that we have no "rights" as soon as they say that we don't. That's scary. Further, you can be an "enemy combatant" right here in the U.S. It use to be that you STILL had rights, but they could try you for treason for "crimes against your country." Apparently that is no longer the case. Now they can literally label someone, round them up, and lock them away (or worse) under fairly arbitrary means.

Doesn't the PATRIOT Act give them ability as well? Say someone is a 'terrorist' or 'providing material support' for terrorists, send them to GITMO, not to be heard from again....

No the PATROIT Act only gives the govt. an unfettered right to wire tap without a warrant in emergency circumstances (which, admittedly, are arbitrary), but it does not give the government the power to send U.S. Citizens to GITMO without due process, to the best of my knowledge.